The need to distinguish charity and subsidy

This is an adaptation of a Discord discussion in response to this tweet:

Somebody (whose permission to use their name I didn’t request) asked:

Mr. Pera, could you comment on this? Does this clash with Christianity’s idea of charity?


Does Christianity somehow invert the status hierarchy, or is this not applicable?

Yes, explicitly.

Or does a connection with God lift you one above the hierarchy?

It doesn’t, but it introduces salvation of the soul as the more salient value.

The important follow-up questions are

1) Is it empirically correct that Christian charity produces more beggars, and
2) If so, is that an acceptable cost for accomplishing its purpose, is there an Aristotelian mean for charity, or should we discard it as a form of maladaptive cuckoldry?

I’d argue that 1) no, and 2) if God tells you to burn the world, you do it (after asking for clarification, verifying his identity as best as possible, checking this against the pattern of his previous commands, etc. due diligence type stuff). But I think Zero HP Lovecraft is being overly analytical and underly empirical. I’d offer the following as compelling empirical evidence against Zero HP Lovecraft’s insistence that charity incentivizes dependency:

Update: MM provides notes.

First video:

-people with happy and productive lives, who are not isolated and who have deep social ties, do not get addicted.

-you “bond” with cocaine, gambling, wtvr, in place of a normal thingy

-A core part of addiction is not being able to stand to be present in your life (nothing to be present for)

-We’ve traded connections for stuff.

-Make addicts feel “you arent alone, we love you” instead of threats and punishments

-The opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it is connection.
(Sobrity = connection IMO but whatever…)
Second video:

-We are making a society where it is harder to be present in (thus setting us up for mass unhappiness, addiction, etc.)

Very very. true

Unfullfilling jobs, lives spent running after useless shit, “socialization” through souless social media (like this right now…), divorce, lack of exercise and nutrition.

(And of course, corporations BUILD addictive conditions to create captive user bases. Social media, sugar water, fast food, pills. Thats big business!)

Of course increasing amounts of people will want to leave reality by taking drugs. This reality fucking sucks.

That reminds me, I need to announce that the Discord is under new management, which is to say its original management. I’m still microblogging there pretty much every day, but MM is once again the admin.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The need to distinguish charity and subsidy

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Did not the Apostle Paul speak this of charity: “But if any is not willing to work, neither let him eat.” The English “work houses” were based on this principle. Sadly, they were brutal and miserable, perverting the very notion of charity. The examples of Moses, King David, and Jesus show that joy is to be shared among all the body, rich and poor alike. God hates oppression, and your neighbors weakness is not an excuse to oppress him.

  2. Obadiah says:

    Subsidy is charity where neither party learns anything.

    • bicebicebice says:

      if the goal is to create dependance… goobernment steals peoples money to employ the biggest fucking retards they can find, savvy melonoids court the goobernment for grants-season handouts “umma need 500million to learn niggers to chode, we work together and share the great PR!” Brrirriant!!!!
      all jobs are welfare for wahmen naggers and juice on the white mans dime, the more they “work” the more they drain. the biggest charity problem of our time isn’t giving sandwhiches and drugs to hobos, itz the fucking every western government!

      Fox says:
      August 18, 2019 at 12:34 am
      “The analogue to intergrating addicts into society is to give them land (and opportunities to work it) or employment.” a fuck up will starve on his plot of land because he is a retard, if he gets an employment he will crash the company and society if he works in government.

      Mycroft Jones says:
      August 17, 2019 at 8:10 pm”
      “God hates oppression, and your neighbors weakness is not an excuse to oppress him.” my neighbors weakness is not an excuse to oppress me.

      charity can never mean “help”, this is a female word reserved for babies, when men use the word “help”, the gay agenda takes over because itz always leads to “he dindunuffins”. Never feel sorry for a grown ass man. the average male normie can only be “helped” by being integrated into the sape pack, a spergautisté can be helped by having access to the internet (or the library bc times) and sort himself out. when it comes to sapes the cliché is true: the normie that made it into the gold house and rocket car but with no friends will be miserable, the sape on the bench with his bum chums will always he content. However, the sperg will be very happy in his gold house, but not in the company of normies.

      Subsidy? isn’t that what michigan should be doing, diverting funds to fix their water? you subsidize infrastructure and possibly/maybe research (even though all great inventors came up with their shit at home – larg scale manufacturing of those ideas comes after the fact not before-then you can subsidize a factory that produces G.E.C.K’s.

      this is a good basic introduction to charity, do not be turned off by his normie-shitpost-caricature-persona and turn it off…but here is the TLDR: we closed down the insane asylums, stopped euthanizing retarded people keeping them locked up etc basically in a nutshell, cue the fallout. dysgenic people can not live in civilization, and right now the entire world is pretending that the whiteoid neanderboon man from oxford didn’t invent everything on the planet, no, that was done by wahmen juice naggers-sapes ooga boogas and feral cannibal groid rapists…


  3. Fox says:

    The video: Legalize drugs but strongly subsidize the integration of addicts into society (ie subsidize the solution)
    It doesn’t say: Give addicts the drug-equivalent of food stamps (“drug stamps”, ie subsidize the problem).

    The correct analogy equates “drugs” with “money”. So: Charity = Free drugs for addicts (subsidize the problem). The analogue to intergrating addicts into society is to give them land (and opportunities to work it) or employment.

  4. Fox says:

    – charity means helping anonymous people, with whom one (typically) doesn’t have much in common – other tribe/race, class/profession, culture/language, worldview/ideology, religion/denomination, character/abilities.
    That’s not natural. In nature, it’s those who are closest to you (family, extended family, clan, tribe) and those who are the most similar to you, that help you. The natural reaction to otherness is (more or less cautious) indifference – unless of course we’re talking about a reciprocal relationship (symbiosis), but that’s another situation.
    – what are the motives of people working in charity? 1) real pathological altruism (widespace thals who never should have lived among peoples that aren’t widespace in the first place), 2) status-signalling, 3) perverted nurturing instincts (channeled towards strangers instead of focused on family/tribe), 4) predatory impulses (taking advantage of people who are dependent on them, 5) conscience (following religious or secular rules that say one has to help strangers), 6) desire for other people’s gratitude/acknowledgement (savior-syndrome)
    In which of those cases is there a real human connection? Obviously, there is none in 4) and 2). In
    5) and 6), the people one helps are just objects of charity – it’s not about them, but about the helper, who can only fulfill his task through helping them ( 5) ) or needs them only as gratitude-givers and acknowledgers ( 6) ). In 3), there are real emotions towards those one helps, but these emotions do not belong there – again, they are mere objects of charity, targetrs on which the childless catlady can dumb her maternal feelings. 1) is real, but not specific or natural – and it is rare anyway.

  5. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    There is an old story about giving a man a fish and he’ll be set till tomorrow. Teach how to catch fish and he is set for life. I think we have to choose more carefully how we “help” people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s